Every week within a 20-minute walk of our flat, there are dozens of open lectures where world-renowned experts share insight on diverse topics. Attending seems a reasonable idea since we don’t have a TV to learn about diverse topics from Jeopardy.
Our first lecture was from an elected official and legal scholar, who was comparing England’s privacy laws to the newest Bond movie. This art vs. reality approach to a complicated legal issue seemed something I could understand, so with high hopes of seeing a charismatic member of the House of Lords, we planned our first big night out.
When the day arrived, the distinguish gentlemen took the podium and we were witness to an excellent example of how to present interesting information in the most uninteresting way. His face in his notes, he spoke in a mono-toned voice never moving, while one picture from the newest James Bond Movie sat beside him. I was fighting the urge to check my email instead of gaining an understanding of England’s internet privacy laws and the cultural reaction to Snowden’s release of confidential information. I was sure his oratory skills were not the key to his winning a seat in Parliament. And I wasn’t sure he actually watched the movie either.
Not ready to a give up, the following week we booked the last two seats at a highly anticipated philosophy lecture that started at 5 pm. Nothing says “happy hour” on Thursday’s in Oxford more than a deep introspective lecture.
My idea of philosophy is John Stewart’s The Daily Show, but I was sure I could adapt to an Oxford think tank visiting scholar. But I was wrong. He read from his book for an entire hour, glancing up only at the end of his short sentences. This resulted in his speaking style looking as if he was regularly nodding in self-approval.
His philosophy hypothesized that human’s sole motivation in life is the approval of future generations, and without it there would be no reason to work. I, in turn, hypothesized his title, ‘Reasons to Worry’ was a concern over the audience’s ability to remain awake as he read, “The principle value is our value system. Reciprocity is the evaluation of the value. How we evaluate the evaluators and their value is what we value most.” And this went went on until he asked for question.
After what felt like a three-hour lecture, the room was a sea of raised hands. The first question came from an interested, well-dressed young student in the front row. He was highly respectful and with great reverence, he asked his question in four parts. After pondering for a moment, the speaker answered, “I feel the pressure of your statement.“ He paced for another moment and then said “I find your underlying concept completely bizarre” and then moved on to request the next question. A long-haired forty-something man in front of me took his turn. He said, “I have three points which cut to the heart of your basic premise” and then he went on to ask three long and involved questions about family values, the love of knowledge, and the failure of reciprocity. The speaker didn’t waste a moment, and quickly responded: “My answer depends on how exactly humanity ends. Do we slowly morph into a superior state, or do war-like space aliens invade us? I simply reject your questions as invalid. Next question please.” After an hour of these questions and non-answers, I understood why this lecture was entitled “Reasons to Worry?”, as I was worrying if we would ever leave for dinner.
Next week, I think we’ll drop in and catch an impromptu lecture from the locals that regularly perch at a pub whilst we eat some fish and chips.
